db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Francois Orsini" <francois.ors...@gmail.com>
Subject DERBY-528 - IRC discussion summary between KatheyM and FrancoisO
Date Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:00:59 GMT
This is a summary of the IRC discussion Kathey M. and I had today. Posting
it on derby-dev to record it - Thanks again for your time and help Kathey.

    <kmarsden>    francois: Did you want to talk about DERBY-528? We can
talk here on #derby and then summarize to the list.
    <FrancoisOrsini>    I'm going to post some details as you've asked
    <kmarsden>    The big question for me is that I want to make sure this
doesn't cause any new upgrade order restrictions
    <FrancoisOrsini>    It should not with the current changes
    <kmarsden>    10.1 /10.2 servers/clients need to continue to work
together without change. Even if it is that the DERBY-528 fix exposes an
existing but, it needs to be resolved before DERBY-528 goes in.
    <kmarsden>    Does that make sense?
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Absolutely
    <kmarsden>    Oh sorry, then I am confused about your original question
    <FrancoisOrsini>    ok - let me explain
    <kmarsden>    not question, statement about the incompatibility.
    <FrancoisOrsini>    The current changes as they have been posted do not
cause 10.1 /10.2 servers/clients connection(s) to fail - all compatibility
tests are passing
    <kmarsden>    ok. You made a code change then to do that from your
original patch?
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Yes I did
    <FrancoisOrsini>    I have backed out the default upgraded secmec to use
as SECMEC_USRSSBPWD (password substitute)
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Because we can't process on the client the list of
SecMec's returned from a server which does not support this new SecMec
    <FrancoisOrsini>    For instance, 10.2 <--> 10.1
    <kmarsden>    I see I really missed that from your patch update
    <FrancoisOrsini>    If I could parse that list on the client side, then
SECMEC_USRSSBPWD could be used as a default upgraded secmec after
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Yes, sorry my description was not clear
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Hence why I entered
    <kmarsden>    Then after the fix for DERBY-1517 you will be able to
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Yep
    <FrancoisOrsini>    and It was working great until I ran the full
compatibility tests
    <FrancoisOrsini>    I had run lots of tests w/ SECMEC_USRSSBPWD so I
know it had been working fine, except when going 10.2 --> 10.1
    <kmarsden>    I understand. I was wondering if you could post a summary
of the changes that the DERBY-528 patch makes in some detail to make it a
little easier to review.
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Yes am writing it now
    <FrancoisOrsini>    But Derby-1517 is tricky
    <kmarsden>    Excellent. I will wait for that and then review.
    <FrancoisOrsini>    The server version is not returned from a ACCSECRD
    <kmarsden>    Right. I was worried about that. It is too early right?
    <FrancoisOrsini>    I have to recheck again but I did not see it - Yes
it is too early as you mentioned in the notes
    <FrancoisOrsini>    But then am trying to see if I could still parse the
list returned today, instead of the array (as the specs mentioned)
    <kmarsden>    good. It would be good to upgrade the default.
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Absolutely - This was my original intention and
    <FrancoisOrsini>    This security mechanism implementation has ben a
challenging one
    <kmarsden>    Thanks for taking it on. On the coding format. The only
place I saw the indentation not matching the surrounding code was
BasicAuthenticationServiceImpl with a visual diff.
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Due to the fact, well, there is no way to decrypt a
substituted (hashed) password :)
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Ok - I'm going to look at these and address them
    <kmarsden>    It is awful that we don't have a coding standard
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Yeah and then it is hard to copy code that does not
look standard when you need to put new changes - am always tempted to fix
code around but then it is confusing the review
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Need to ask you something about db2jcc
    <FrancoisOrsini>    what is 2.6 and 2.8 under master\DerbyNet
    <kmarsden>    Someone will eventually get sick of it and pick up
DERBY-1363. every new developer gets bitten by that bug.
    <kmarsden>    Yes. They are JCC versions. What JCC version are you
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Am using 2.4
    <kmarsden>    OK. When you post your summary comment. Just add that JCC
2.6, 2.8 also need to be updated and ask if someone with access can update
the masters.
    <kmarsden>    I can probably do it as part of my review.
    <FrancoisOrsini>    ok I will ask
    <FrancoisOrsini>    Thanks for your time Kathey
    <kmarsden>    Thank you Francois.



View raw message